Category: Psychology

I’ve known some severe liars. People who were so bad that literally nothing that they said, about any subject, could be trusted.

Some reasons:

They want something from you (money, sex, drug-enabling, etc), and think that lying will manipulate you into complying. It may sound logical, but they often use obvious lies, without rational anticipation of the lie’s chances of working.

They want to avoid consequences for their bad behaviour, which was also pathological. Again, some of these lies are obvious.

Lying as a shortcut to social status. This can include the common boasting about money, accomplishments, etc. It can also include boasting about the cool things that they are “going to” do in the near future. They want that status and admiration immediately, without having to take the time and energy to do the work involved. I once had a neighbour who loudly boasted about how she was “going to” quit smoking and start up a healthy lifestyle, expecting immediate admiration. She almost forgot that she had a cigarette in her hand at the time. And no, she never quit or, exercised, or ate healthily.

A related point is trying to seem like a more interesting person. Out of fear that honesty will result in being perceived as a boring loser.

A related status issue is lying to a social clique or other group to push someone else down the hierarchy, as a way of reducing competition.

Constant fantasising. And saying things (sometimes quite casually) as if the fantasy were reality. Including things that are physically impossible.

Fear of the truth, with desperate attempts to avoid facing it. They lie partly in order to convince and comfort themselves.

Lying out of embarrassment over revealing what they really think. Such as holding bigoted attitudes, but refusing to admit it. Or having competition-based envy and hostility, but claiming that the hostility is due to the target being dysfunctional or bad.

Making up “rules” for how everyone else “has to” behave. Including in friendships, sexual relationships, workplaces, etc, etc. They don’t claim that it is their personal rules. They claim that, there are simply universal “rules” of all human interactions, which are coincidentally whatever they think serves them, practically or emotionally.

Minimisation. Claiming that their bad behaviour wasn’t really so bad, so you don’t have a position to object, or to impose consequences. Also, minimisation of the importance of other lies. Such as, “That was a white lie, so you don’t have any right to stop trusting me over it”.

Repetition. If they keep repeating it over and over, you will get tired of the conflict that you allegedly cause by refusing to believe them. And will be worn down into actually believing them.

Failure to anticipate any limits to your willingness to trust them and to continue interacting with them. No matter how many times you have caught them lying, they assume that you will stick around, and will desperately try to see them as trustworthy. They think that your desire to trust them is just as infinite as their inclination to lie. Including when they tell the same lie, yet again.

A related point is, “This time it’s different”. I once had someone repeat a previous lie, admitting that it had been a lie before, while insisting, “That was then, and this is a different time. So you have to trust that I am telling the truth this time, and don’t have the right to judge me for the previous time”.

A related mechanism is trying new angles. They will tell a lie, and you refuse to believe them. Then, they will immediately tell a different lie, which contradicts the first lie. They think that they can can just try a series of different lies, until they find the one that you are willing to believe.

Another related point is using your empathy or your desire to “help”them with their bad life situations (which are the result of their own bad behaviour). They assume that your empathy is endless, no matter how much they abuse it (and you). They try to use your empathy to keep you involved, while convincing you to buy into their definition of “help”, which is really enabling of their bad behaviour.

They are confident that you cannot prove that they are lying. Including when they lie about the content of previous conversations between the two of you. Or even things they said earlier in the same conversation.

They want to lash out. They will come up with anything to say that they expect will hurt you emotionally/psychologically. They may even admit this, to try to avoid consequences (e.g. you abandoning them).

Stimulant drugs. People using cocaine or amphetamine are notorious for compulsive lying. If they have been using for some time, they will compulsively lie even when they aren’t under the influence at the moment. Even other addicts (e.g. to sedating drugs) view these people as bad news.

Dominance games. If they lie, and you believe them, they have dominated you.

Desperation to pull you down into their loser mentality. I once had an acquaintance who insisted that, no employer will ever pay any employee more than minimum wage, so it is stupid to put forth any extra effort or skills. They claim they are trying to “help” you to avoid wasting effort, when they are really motivated by frightened envy/competition.

A related point is trying to minimise anything good in your life. They will lie to avoid the feeling that you may be winning some kind of competition. Including when you have zero interest in competing.

Covering up their ignorance. They don’t want to admit that they don’t know something, so they invent some convenient-sounding pseudo-information about it. This includes insisting that they know better than you (even if you have substantial relevant knowledge and experience).

Just world hypothesis. They are afraid of vulnerability, so they insist that, bad things only happen to those who deserve it. And look for ways to apply that to a given situation where someone else experiences adversity or victimisation.

What all of this comes down to is desperation for control. And desperate people do dysfunctional and often blatantly unworkable things.

Facing how things really are is like surrendering. Lying that things are some other way, is an attempt to control the situation.

Facing the fact that you won’t/don’t believe them is like surrendering to you. Lying with you believing them, means controlling you, even if there is nothing practical to be gained.

The personality-disordered person expects that, she will do whatever impulsive action comes to mind, and that, everyone else will respond by giving or doing whatever she wants. The disorder prevents them from anticipating any negative consequences for themselves.

Later, when the negative consequence has just been imposed, they still refuse to draw the connection. And will insist that, the negative consequence is due to someone being mean-spirited towards them. And “wasn’t” really a reasonable reaction to the disordered person’s abusive behaviour.

This prevents them from learning from past negative consequences. They will do the exact same abusive behaviour again and again. Fully expecting that, this time, everyone else will cooperate.

They can feel fear, but they often cannot apply that to decision-making.

I might say, “If you do XYZ behaviour, then I will respond with ABC negative consequence”. And the behaviour is obviously abusive, and my response is simply removing myself from abuse-range.

What they hear is, “Blah, blah, blah, I am going to harm you, and deprive you of what you are entitled to”.

Also, some personality-disordered individuals view everything as a dominance-fight. If you set a rule by stating action→consequence, they will view that as you attempting to dominate them. So they will feel compelled to violate that rule, to prove that you are powerless to enforce it, and powerless to impose consequences. So that they can take the dominant position.

Personality-disordered people are also profoundly lacking in empathy. This isn’t simply that they cannot “feel your pain”. It is that they cannot anticipate or understand your motivation for responding negatively to their actions. Or your motivation to impose negative consequences.

They also lack the empathy to understand anyone else’s perspective on consequences. They will never respect your right to control your own behavioural choices, based on rational anticipation of consequences.

The people fixating on this actually have a larger goal. They want to eliminate transsexual people.

And, after that, some of them want proceed on to abuse and degrade the position of females who are not transsexual. The other end of the wedge is much thicker than it might appear.

Bullying people to use public toilets with a public declaration of, “This Is The Birth Sex Of This Person” is a way of dictating that, the person hasn’t really socially transitioned to the role or position of their adopted gender.

Then, consider the issue of enforcement. If there is a confrontation, how would you verify whether a person is or isn’t legally allowed in that public toilet? The obvious answer is to demand to see their government identification.

Next, the public bullying/outing will be to change laws to remove the ability to change the sex/gender marker on driving licenses, passports, and other government identification. The US federal government is already making efforts to define legal sex as immutable and permanently set at birth.

There are also debates in the UK and New Zealand, where hostile feminists are demanding that people should not have the right to change the sex on their birth certificates, or anywhere else. They feel personally oppressed by a letter on someone else’s passport.

This identification issue will help to enable prospective employers to spot transsexual job applicants, and discriminate against them.

Here in New Zealand, driving licenses don’t have any obvious sex/gender marker (although it might be coded into the serial number somehow, and is probably in a database somewhere). However, an immigrant who must show a foreign passport and visa may be severely disadvantaged if her birth sex is listed on those.

The connection between public toilets and government identification is all about violating people’s right to privacy for deeply personal, painful, and stigmatised medical information.

Continuing with the enforcement issue, what kind of penalties would be imposed for using the “wrong” toilet? Are people going to end up with a criminal record as a sex offender (thereby further degrading their ability to be members of society, and to secure employment)? Will there be a fine that they cannot afford to pay? Jail time? And will the birth-sex bathroom issue extend to placing post-operative transsexual women in men’s jails?

There are already severe disparities among transsexual people, some of which have nothing to do with personal legitimacy, sincerity, or decency. There are randomly assigned issues, including physical ones such as height and facial features. And situational ones, such as whether a young person has a supportive family or not, as well as socioeconomic background and geographic location. These lead to disparities in how a person looks to casual observers, along with access to treatment (especially at a young age). Which also leads to disparities in the ability to function as a participant in society, such as being treated in a halfway civilised manner by other people, and the ability to secure and keep employment.

Bathroom laws would have a more severe impact on transsexual women compared to transsexual men. Partly due to differences of hormone effectiveness (and thus “passability” patterns), and partly due to differences of paranoia level. Supposedly feminist, woman-defending laws would advantage this class of men over this class of women, when there is already a general pattern of people gaining or losing social male privilege.

There are pervasive social issues concerning transsexual people’s appearances. Some people make their acceptance based on whether the person conforms to certain physical standards, including beauty standards. Others are paranoid that, a person who looks “passible” is somehow deceiving them personally, and withholding information to which the observer feels entitled. It isn’t about having sex without disclosure, and isn’t limited to toilets. There are people who think that someone doesn’t have the right to walk down a public street with an appearance that strangers interpret as opposite to their birth-sex or current genitalia.

This is an example of the general way that many people feel entitled to police public and semi-public spaces as if it were their own private space. As well as acting victimised by things that are none of their business. It connects with people who would abuse strangers for speaking a foreign language in public, or for holding hands with a same-sex partner. I have even encountered people (always females) who claimed that I didn’t have the right to appear in public places (or to be in the same room with other human beings), because I survived child abuse, or because I worked more than 40 hours per week. Because I would somehow be offending and harming total strangers who don’t even know that information. You are different to someone, or maybe they are envious in some way, and they will assert the authority to decide that you don’t get to be a member of society as a whole. There is no limit to the bizarre pettiness, arrogance, and self-defense fantasies.

For transsexual people, the quality of one’s mentality or behaviour is considered irrelevant. You could be finding life on Mars, curing cancer, solving global warming and pollution, building schools for girls in patriarchal third world countries, defending reproductive rights (that don’t benefit you, since you are sterile), working to reduce child abuse and other domestic violence, and bringing peace to the Middle East in your spare time. And many people will only want to focus on what is in your pants, what hormones and surgery you use, a letter on your birth certificate, and where you choose to urinate.

You may even be openly assigned the status of a “rapist” and predator without actually raping anyone, or harming anyone in any way. And we don’t want any “rapists” in public toilets. Including the kind of “rapist” who never actually raped anyone, and has zero intention of ever doing so. Because that is about the most sneaky, deceptive, and difficult-to-prosecute “rapist” there is.

Toilet owners probably aren’t going to put a device on the door that checks your identification, and only unlocks if it matches. And there is nothing about those “men” or “women” signs that forcibly filters who walks in.

Someone who appears female to a casual observer, goes into a stall, urinates out of anyone’s sight, flushes, washes hands, and leaves without any interaction with (or even looking in the direction of) other toilet-users, cannot reasonably be said to have victimised anyone.

Bathroom laws would be enforced based on physical appearance, not behaviour. Thus criminalising someone merely because some stranger doesn’t like the way she looks. It also places people at the mercy of whether that random stranger does or doesn’t choose to harass and confront them.

Next, since social transitioning is being eliminated, there will be efforts to create laws and regulations prohibiting doctors from prescribing cross-sex hormone treatment or surgery. This will start with underage adolescents, for sympathy, but will escalate to adult patients, with condescension. And claims of allegedly “helping” mentally incompetent people to avoid making a mistake.

Plus, we don’t want anyone medically altering her body in a way that might deceive strangers (ranging from other toilet-users, to prospective employers, to passers-by-on-the-street) about her birth-sex or genitalia. Because she “doesn’t” have any right to privacy or autonomy. And neither do you.

The proponents of bathroom laws practically admit that they are comfortable with abusing transsexual women who have done nothing to anyone, as punishment for the for the violent crimes actually (or even just potentially) committed by men. Also, I recall some American politician publicly stating that, if he had had the opportunity as a teenager to enter girls’ school bathrooms for voyeurism, he would have done so, like he thought this was cute. Project much? But ultimately, this has nothing to do with preventing fraudulent “fake trannies” from peeping or assaulting in public toilets (both of which are already illegal).

The people pushing this stuff would be quite happy to see each and every transsexual person put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.

Meanwhile, idiot transjacktivists with too much time on their hands, go on YouTube and other sites (including Quora), ranting that they can’t get laid, and pathetically trying to guilt-trip lesbians into providing sex and validation. They demonstrate massive disrespect of boundaries, consent, and females in general. Thereby feeding into the paranoia and contempt. They are disgusting, and I wouldn’t want to share any type of space with some of them.

The loudest people on that side create serious “guilt by association” for quieter ones who just want peace and privacy. Unfortunately, things have progressed to where some creepy, fetishistic dude thinks he can put “transgender woman” on his public online profile (while doing nothing more), and feels entitled to the same consideration as a sincere, shy, decent person who used permanent medical alterations, at great personal cost and suffering, to avoid suicide. This is one of the main social and political problems for transsexual people.

In this general type of debate (whether it is toilets, sex/gender markers on documents, hormones for underage minors, terminology/labels, or the general legitimacy of transsexual people), there is a lot of black-and-white thinking, and a lot of people yelling past each other, without real communication. Neither side presents themselves or their arguments well.

There is a privacy argument that, females should be free from males looking at them in a state of undress, or from the sight of a penis. Implying that there is open nudity going on in public toilets. I have never exposed (or seen) any body part in a public toilet that wouldn’t normally be visible. The partial disrobing happens inside a stall. The last communal toilet I was in had the edge of the door made so that there wasn’t any gap between it and the partition, so someone would need to look over or under. As far as I could tell, there weren’t any feminist “toilet police” there trying to check out my crotch, unless they had a hidden camera in the stall.

There is another privacy argument that, legally allowing legitimate transsexual women to access public toilets, would enable non-transsexual, cis-male predators to “put on a dress” and openly walk in without being confronted and removed. This also links to other female-designated spaces, of various types. And that, said predators would be further enabled to peep and assault (both of which are already illegal). I will withhold opinion on this, because the mentality of such predators is, by definition, irrational, and very far removed from my own mentality. I would be open seeing crime data for every dimension of this issue, including the number of incidents, and correlation to time-frame of legislation. This isn’t a dismissal – I am actually interested in seeing the numbers.

Who is the creepy pervert? The person who just wants a safe, accessible, private, appropriate facility for a normal, daily bodily function? Or some self-appointed “toilet police” obsessed with a stranger’s genitalia, that they can’t even see, who enjoys harassing members of a highly vulnerable minority?

Do the feminist bathroom-defenders want to deputise me as an enforcer? Am I expected to get one of those miniature remote-control helicopter drones with a video camera, and fly it over the partition, to verify the genitalia of the woman in the next stall, to make sure she is legal to be there? Am I expected to stand by the door all day, checking ID documents? Or conducting strip-searches, before strangers are allowed to go in and empty their bladders? How much “collateral damage” is acceptable, when I accidentally harass females who are too tall, or who fail to meet some hetero-normative femininity/beauty standards? Remind me again who is the creepy voyeur pervert?

Personally, I have always found communal toilets to be creepy in general. I want regular floor-to-ceiling walls and locking door between me and everybody else. I’m there to relieve my bladder, not to socialise. If available, I choose wheelchair-accessible toilets, for the privacy and larger space. These are often gender-neutral, and I don’t care, because I am the only person in there at the time.

There could be a simple solution right there. Single-user, gender-neutral toilets, with full-length walls and doors.

If I need to use a multi-stall toilet, I obviously don’t want someone looking in or assaulting me (both of which are already illegal).

Would I feel comfortable with a unisex multi-stall toilet or shower? No, I wouldn’t, because I don’t trust men in general in such a situation (or in many other situations). However, if another bathroom user meets my perception of being a woman (which honestly does have large appearance and “vibe” components), and is generally acting civilised, I don’t know or care what she has in her pants, or floating through her bloodstream, or on her identification documents. It doesn’t threaten me, doesn’t degrade my own social woman-status, and doesn’t affect me in any other way.

I’ve always had a personal policy of keeping my attention out of other women’s knickers, unless directly invited. Because I actually understand boundaries.

If I want total control to restrict access to a toilet, it needs to be my own personal toilet, in my own home, entirely paid for by me. If I use public toilets, I have to share them with other members of the public, who may be different to me in some way, and who may be people with whom I would never want to socialise. It’s the same with any other public or semi-public space.

Informed feminists should be aware of the connection between public toilets and oppression of women, ranging from 19th century Britain, to modern India. Lack of acceptable public toilets restricts women’s ability to go out in public as a participating member of society. And yet, some feminists are quite willing to see that imposed on people who happen to be different to themselves.

The bathroom-defenders don’t necessarily really think that, “use the toilet of your birth sex” is viable. I seriously doubt they want to see Buck Angel in the ladies’ room. And some of them will openly state that they simply don’t care about harassment or even violence against people who happen to be different to themselves.

This whole “issue” is being used as a moral panic. It focuses on a fraction of a percent of the population, but the disproportionate media attention (including both click-baiting and liberal virtue-signalling) suggest that public toilets everywhere are being absolutely overrun. Politicians pushing this are concerned with a much larger group, which is voters, who need to be told that there is huge social problem, and that those politicians are going to fix it and protect the public.

The previous moral panic was same-sex marriage, which many people still don’t like, but that fight appears to be now settled. So a new moral panic needed to start, with a smaller and more vulnerable minority.

In America, this type of issue (starting with military servicemember policy) has provided a distraction. From things like the alleged Russian involvement with the presidential election. And from that president’s attitude and conduct towards women. And from whether he is even minimally qualified or self-controlled enough for the position.

The creepy bathroom fixation sounds very specific. However, it is closely linked to other things, such as current efforts to restrict access to abortion.

This can also be seen with the opposition to transsexual hormone treatment for adolescents, with hand-wringing about how they are sterilised by the process. This relates to the pervasive view that, everyone is obligated to have children, whether they want to or not.

It also relates to the idea that the government has the authority to criminalise the consumption of the “wrong” types of drugs.

All of this is based on a general idea that, people (whether transsexual or not) don’t really have the right to control their own bodies or their lives.

I started this answer with the phrase, “the thin end of the wedge”. And that wedge isn’t going to stop with transsexual people.

The current, easy target is a tiny minority, towards which most people’s view ranges from lack of empathy, up to extreme contempt. And whose societal group-image suffers greatly from the garbage spewed by the above-mentioned, self-appointed, online transjacktivists.

However, this seemingly-specific legal and social progression will embolden its proponents to continue steamrolling over other demographics and rights.

The logical future?

Further limitations on sex education in public schools.

Further restrictions on adolescents’ access to birth control, even with parental consent.

Further limitations on funding for (or even caring about) health services (including, but not just limited to, reproductive services) for low-income people.

Today, pass bathroom laws and ID document restrictions (because people “don’t” really have the right to medical privacy). Tomorrow, overturn Roe vs. Wade (which was based on the right to medical privacy).

Because people “don’t” really have the right to control their own bodies.

Along with the medical angles, you can also expect degraded big-picture situations for employment, regarding both sexist discrimination, and sexual harassment (including situations with zero involvement of any transsexual people).

It’s fascinating that, the feminist bathroom-defenders and ID document micromanagers are now on the same side as the folks who want to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

It’s also fascinating to see paranoid lesbians on the same side as homophobes.

And they are all on the same side as a president whose attitude towards women is, “Grab ’em by the pussy”.

A long time ago, I thought that feminism was largely about, “my body, my rules”. And about people making their own choices how to live their lives, without social coercion or restriction based on what they were born with between their legs.

Women are encouraged/allowed to be extremely petty. There is seemingly no lower limit of socially acceptable pettiness among women. This gives more tendency to find reasons to hate another woman.

Women are encouraged to take a victim mentality. And also to use claims of victimsation as a tool for manipulation, authority to tell others what to do, and bullying as an alleged self-defense.

Women are encouraged to be passive, dependent, and to avoid full responsibility, thereby increasing the victim mentality. This leads to hatred of other women who are actively controlling their own lives.

A common resentment dynamic is a woman who buys into the LifeScript of getting into a financially dependent marriage, having children, and then feeling trapped. She then meets a single, childfree woman, and hatred ensues.

Women are encouraged to have a pretense of “cooperation” over competition. However, this can encourage the view that, another woman who excels (or even just shows basic competence) in any way, is violating the “cooperation” mandate. Which can become, “You are obligated to cooperate by sinking down to my level (finances, status, intellect, autonomy, etc), or I will enlist other women to cooperate with me in viewing you as the enemy”.

“Cooperation” is also linked to “fairness”, which can be twisted into everyone receiving the same results, regardless of personal behaviour. And hatred for anyone doing better through her own higher effort or discipline.

Women may use a false, “I am being compassionate and trying to help you” pretense as a cover for pressuring another woman to “cooperate”, and sink down. And then as justification for bullying the ingrate who refused to do so.

Women are trained to emphasise interpersonal relationships, including platonic friendship. And so will fear being cast out and lonely, and/or having low status in a clique. Which then rebounds to bullying another woman with threats of interpersonal/social rejection.

Male-style competition is the drive to get more (money, status, etc) for one’s self. While female-style competition is the demand that, another woman must be pushed down, even with zero practical benefit to bully. Men need to win, while women need other women to lose.

The pushing-down impulse has a common pattern where, immediately upon meeting, the first order of business may be to confirm that, the other woman is at the bottom-of-the-barrel socioeconomically/materially. If she is doing any better (through harder/smarter work), hatred ensues.

There is mass insecurity over appearance, and this goes far beyond competition for male attention. A woman who is already in a stable marriage may still hate another woman whom she thinks looks better. This includes not only face and body, but also things like health habits (smoking, exercising, eating).

Another area separate from male attention/resources is homosexual females. They can be amazingly hostile towards another woman, and it tends to be competition-oriented. A related point is the huge sense of fear and victimisation that accompanies the numerical difficulty in small gay social circles and mating-markets. They meet another woman who isn’t their “type” of prospective sex partner, and so then defaults to being a competitor to be bullied. Some of the most petty, arrogant, false-victim, gaslighting bullies I’ve ever encountered were gay women.

You can grow up and get away from the individual who physically beat you, verbally/psychologically abused you, or financially abused you, but you can never get away from the multitudes who further abuse you with denial and victim-blaming, for the rest of your life.

So, at that age and point in life, the breaking point was the idiot directly stating the intent to sexually assault me. The whole “relationshit” was about five months of gradually escalating conflict up to then.

An important point was the choice of words: “It’s going to happen”, as if a violent sexual assault was an event that just inevitably “happens” without either party having any control, or any responsibility.

I really should have bailed out before that, due to the person’s generally obnoxious, negative, controlling attitude. In retrospect, the red flags were there right from the beginning.

On the bright side, that situation helped to cure my expectations of rationality in other people. Sexual relationships are a major focal point of their senses of entitlement, and belief that they can do any bad behaviour they want, without any negative consequences. Many people seriously believe that, a sexual relationship (or even a platonic “friendshit”) is literally a license to commit ongoing acts of violent crime.

This is also important for anyone evaluating prospective partners. Vital points include evaluating their senses of entitlement, and also looking for any fixations on particular sex acts, fetishes, etc. Because they will never stop pushing those fixations onto you.

The anal obsession seems to be quite common, and they will keep it up for weeks, months, and even years, making the relationship into one long argument about it. When they get sufficiently frustrated and tired of arguing, there is a high risk of physical violence.

Regardless of the particular form of abuse, as long as the relationship is going on, the abuser simply cannot grasp that the target has the right or ability to leave. This includes situations where the target is not in any way financially or materially dependent on the abuser, and can even be a situation where the abuser is dependent.

After you terminate the relationship, you should cut off all contact with the abuser. Because any conversation will be all about trying to manipulate you into getting re-involved.

When I scan over local and national news headlines, and see something like, “Woman found dead in her home, stabbed fifty times”, my first guess is that the perpetrator was someone known to the victim, and most likely an estranged spouse or partner.